Twenty-nine jurisdictions filed an amicus brief in the DC Circuit backing the FTC's Meta antitrust appeal, arguing courts must assess monopoly power at the time of the complaint.
Twenty-nine jurisdictions, comprising 28 states and the District of Columbia, filed a joint amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit on May 29, supporting the Federal Trade Commission's appeal of an adverse district court ruling in its long-running antitrust action against Meta Platforms [1]. The filing marks one of the largest state-coalition interventions in a federal technology antitrust proceeding in recent memory and signals broad governmental alignment behind the FTC's theory of monopoly liability [1].
The underlying dispute stems from the FTC's 2020 complaint alleging that Meta illegally maintained monopoly power in personal social networking through its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp [1]. The district court ruled against the FTC, finding that Meta does not currently hold monopoly power in that market [1]. The FTC appealed to the DC Circuit, and the state coalition entered the case as amici to press a distinct legal argument about the evidentiary standard the lower court applied [1].
The states contend the district court committed legal error by requiring the FTC to prove a violation as of the time of the verdict, rather than as of the time the original complaint was filed in 2020 [1]. That framework, the states argue, creates a structural incentive for companies facing acquisition-based antitrust challenges to delay litigation long enough that market conditions shift in their favor, effectively allowing defendants to "wait out" enforcement actions [1]. The argument targets the temporal logic of antitrust merger enforcement and could carry significant consequences for how courts assess monopoly power in long-running acquisition cases going forward [1].
The DC Circuit now faces a question that sits at the intersection of antitrust doctrine and procedural timing: whether the relevant competitive snapshot for evaluating an alleged anticompetitive acquisition is the moment regulators filed suit or the moment a court renders judgment [1]. The answer will shape how the FTC and state attorneys general prosecute future cases involving large-platform acquisitions, particularly in sectors where market conditions evolve rapidly over the span of years-long litigation [1].
Briefing in the appeal continues before the DC Circuit. The state amicus filing adds political weight to the FTC's legal position and increases pressure on the appellate panel to address the time-horizon question directly. No oral argument date has been publicly set [1].
Meta has not yet filed its response brief on the merits [1].